'3 •

photogtaph5, invent ed atroci,ri. es,

Chomsky's
betrayal of
,truths
'e
o
"
y
; Steven Lukes
e '
"It is the responsibility of intel­
lectuals", Noam Chomsky wrote
in 1967, "to sp€ak the truth and
to expose Jies." His fine ('ssay';
of those years brilliantly exposed
the ways in which liberal intel-
s
lectuals contributed to what he
rightly calle-d the "deceit and dis­
tortion surrou < nding the American
invasion of Vietnam".
What, then, is Chom-.ky doing
contributing to deceit and di<;tOT­
tion surrounding Pol POt',) regime
in Cambodia? La...t year he pub­
li�hed a book After the Cataclysm
t
PoSltvar IndochIna and the Recon-
structiorl of Impclwl Jdeolo)?'t; with
; Edward Herman, in which the re­
cord of that horrcndou<; regime lS
subjected to an extraordinary and
perverse scrutiny, the conclusion<;
of which are twofold that the
atrocities and number of killings
are most probably greatly exag-
r n
f: ���: �ase� � a �7:�t ��lJ ull�� r'"
standable response to the still
more concentrated and extreme
savagery of a United States -assault
that may in part have been designed
evoke this very response".
Before dealing with Chomsky's
to
conclusions, a word about his focus
of concern and method.
His concern, he says, is "US
global policy and propaganda, and
t'he filtering and distorting effect
of Western ideology," in particular,
the role of the «free press" in
«the engineering o-f con's ent", dis­
crediting wcialism and communism
by misdescribing the facts and
"effacing US responsibility". The
"mass media of the West", he
thinks, "has discovered Cambodia ' s
travail. precisely because of its
ideological serviceability". He
claims that" we have not developed
or expressed our views here on the
nature of the Indochinese regimes ",
but of cOUrse he does and must have
such views, since his aim is to show
how the nature of these regimes has
been distorted and misdescribed.
He does this by following an
apparently rigorous but actually
ludicrous method: demanding
" verifiable evidence '\ documen·
tary sources, etc. , and thus discredit­
ing refugee reports and "material
that is subject to no check". He
also exultantlY attacks observers
(such as Francois Ponchaud) fOl
" carelessness with regard to quotes,
numbers and sources ". Of course,
such carelessness is always deplor­
able, but Chomsky pursues it here
with a pedantry that is grotesque,
and so on. Of cours-e. 3!pOlog,ists have
r
��eu ��jt� �rs�fe f:�����=
Cambodia �nto a land cf masn:.:re,
sta>:"vation and disease". It is in­
disput,able that tihe United States
made
b.ombings the Cambodian
tragedy possib.}e� But wh.at re�pnn­
sihle person� let afIOne JintelieCluaL
can doubt t1hat Camb.· between
1975 and 1978 suffered,a r-.eg,ime of
terror,' · with m.ass kill�, brut"l
, m
Q
!Ir��ati�: :: cuIg!al 'srit:: ��
ahoJi,tion of the family, 'the extrac­
tion of confessions, and torture"
and atroOcities DIf all kinds? Many
re�i,able OIlJ.serwers, jn-urnalists and
relief-workers COThCUir in reporting
these things, as do �ef.u.g€€ reports,
which have been repeatedly check�d
for consioStency. Of course, m:wy
deaths resuhed from stal""ve'tion and
diseas ' e, and from Chomsky's fav·
ourite cause, "peasant revenge ",
but the mass g awes SUf'rounding
r ..
purpose·built villages teJl their own
S'tory, in any case well cor�h:nJMed,
as do the reglime's albo�J{llon of
printing presses, of
destruction
books, and its order that. the poplda-
tion was to we-air blr.l.JCk. No reason-
able person can do,ubt that t,he Cam­
bodian experiment wad a ghastly
exercise in mass terro-r aud forced
collectivi7,ation. not merely of
labour, but of life.
What then a.re we to think 01
Chomsky's suggestions tha.t the
deaths in Cambodia were"attrihut·
able in large measure to peaSilrnt
revenge, undiscipli-rned milita·ry
units out of government control,
starvation and disease t,hat are
direct consequences of the United
States war, or other such facrO<r<; ",
that "the evacuation of Phnom
Penlh, widely denounced at the time
and �ince for its undoubted bru­
tality, may actually have <;aved many
Jive" ", that"prngrammes o<f voca�
llonal training fort 12-year-olds are
. . 110t generally regarded £1<;; an
iltl"ocity in a po r peaosant society",
Q
t!Jat "much of the p.opula1ion may
well have supported the regime ",
panicularly if "de-ci-siortts were
taken collectively in th.e coopera­
tive" and even in the army", that
"the Khmer Rouge programme<;
eliCited positive response from
e sector" of the Cambodian peasantry
hecause they dealt with fundd­
mental pntblems rooted in the
feudal past and exacerbate(l hv the
imperial system with its final out­
burst of uncontrolled barbarj<;rn?"
There is Oilly one po<;sible 1hing
t·) think: that Chomsky has become
so \?bsessed by his opposition to t·he
United States' role in Indochina but
he has lost all �nse of pers'pecI lve-.
His argument is a ca'5e of ma.<;-Slve
overkill, discrediting reiJiable al1ld
responsible observers an d soholars,
and converting the Nurh that t-he
United States was indirectly respon­
sible into the l�e that i t was direcfly
so
But the responsi'bility of intellect·
uals is not only a matter of telling
the truth and exposing lies. It is
also a matter of us.ing la,nguage
responsibly. Chomsky is, after all,
a world authori.ty on me use of
language. Consider, however, these
examp les of language ahuse.
First, inappropriate analugy, in
comparing the Camoodiaoll regIme,
not to the Nazis but to "France
after liberation, where a minimum
of 30,000 to 40,000 �ple were
massacred within a few months
with far less motive for revenge
and under far less rigorous condi­
tions than those left by tIle United
States war in Cambodia", Second,
fudging abstraction. as in the
suggestion that "the worst atro-ci"
ties have taken place at the hands
of a peasant army. recruited and
driven out of their devasted village"
by United States' bombs and then
taking revenge against the urban
civilization [sic] that they regarded,
•

gIVen the circumstances, the meagre

results he attains and the consis-
c v u n in their destructi()Il and tJhelr long
��� 6b:;r�e�� l� �u��:i�� {��I!%��
he in any case relies when it suits
his case}.
Indeed, Chomsky in turn protects
himself again<;t refutation by the
facts, writing:
"When the facts are in, it may
turn out that the more extreme
condemnations were in fact cor­
rect. But even if that turns out
to be the case, it will in no way
alter the conclusions we have
reached on the central Question
addressed here: how the available
facts were selected, modified, or
sometimes invented to create a
certain image offered to the
general populafi{Jn. The answer
to this Question seems clear, and
it is unafhcted by whatev�r may
yet be discovered about Cambodia
in the future."
What, then, of Chomsky's conclu­
sions? Of course, pIOIpaganda has
been IJTlBde Oout of t,he Cambodialfl
tr'ag. e-dy: inflated figure,'), faked
not without reason, as a oollaboi"ator
history of oppressi'()II". And third,
Illicit conjunctions, as when Chom·
sky writes that:
"it is an effective tactic to focus
on real or invented atrocities
committed in underdevelQped ex
colonies that use the phrase
, socialism ' in reference to their
programmes of mass ffiOIbilizariorJ
under authoritarian state control
to car' ry out iiflduS'trialiwtion and
modernization,"
What, pray, are real and invented
sentence?
It is sa.(l to see Chomsky writing
these things. Iii: is �n)Dic. given the
United States' Government's present
pursuit of its global role in support­
ing the seating of Pol Pot at the UN.
And it i s bizarre, given Ohomsky's
previous stand for 3!l1aI'Chist-libertaff­
ian principles. In writin,g as he does
about the POll Pot regime ill Cam­
bodia, Chomsky betrays not o-nly
the responsi.bilities of jntell€<Ctuals.
but himself.
 \. '
,

, "

,Ir'l+r:,c'';-.J
r o'cC'"
ci., ,C (
I"" -j
ley\,:" ... "r<.'_ l,t!" ,I'>. lHl 1"(.'W"'· (:OIl1111t:nl.';i ,
,
II
. simp1:,.- f<dl 10 <-!ddrc$5 that issui.!.

I
'�c
: Yours hithftllly. ' ..:<
l\'IARK BLACG,
Lond'j!) In:;dt\jt<� of i
-I
Unin:;":;it:l 'of ,
Educ,�'tio:1. j
!.
I
Post':'iar Inuoehina·
1 I

I
Sirr-Tf:1� con:::spi)n::lenc�prnmptt!d
hy Sr";,/{:l1 Lukd'$ c(JmnH�nts (TIl!::;:;, �- '.
No';emhcf 7)' ahout 'a' nHljril' SC'Cli(lH ;\
I
Ajte�" lhe Cattldysm: POSWN1'

�l'
or .
ion
I1Hlochir.a . and Lh� R.econstruct
Ideo!og.Y is disti;i­ ....
of, Im!)ui(l l
&,uished by. its common q'.w.lit:l· of \
• I
cate�ory ml')tu�e. Professors Chon1- .
sky and H(:rm�n clatm to have·
Set
I
•
out 'not f' to est<.Jb1i'::,h the 'h;cts with

I
r:eg!lrd to post\)'ar Ind()chi.na� "bttt
r to inve·;tigate their rcfr::tc­
rathe
tion throu.;;h th� prism 'or ,'\Vest
cfI\"
!!C�

II
ideolog:;" . . ,.,;;. Des.p'itr:." this "C'�Ve.

th<!:;" do. ,::ttempt "to p:·ovide· an

C:(­
tolP'.
phm:'nlon for the H fearful
. Ap:ril
eX�lcted in C<!.nbodia "ft'Zr
1975. A consti."!.:1t reiteratio':l' of tho:!'
I
theme' or p0il;;�nt revenge and 'un·
disciplined ;:roo p s leaves th.e ·l·cade
l' \
in lW douh. 'whatsoever of · ttl:!

I
e-s.tahlis.hment or' ·th<:!
;.:t\tcrn3tivE' - I
I,nets 'which th.;:y s:!ek to eXp!1UlHl.
,[t is thi3 u:1sl.!bstanti<ltcu ar�t!!ncnt
wbich rr.�er:ts Stc\'cn Lukes's· criti­
cisnl lhat Clw:T:s.!.:;y. . has lost alt,s(!n
s�
of persp('ctive.
1 '''''0ldd· point out t.h<u in, th;;:
cOut'St! of th"�\!" snnlysjs, ChtHn
$�y
.'111(1 JIt!rrnan r�ly �re<.ttly on tilt!'
\','rjtin:�5 of. nen Kjenlllil <lOd
Steven
lkda', csp.:.:cinlly to l"dUh�
l'e(\.geu
nccollnt::> of organized tefl'Or. Yet,
j!l th;-: D!{lfpiin _ t;.i C(��!yerned Astf'tl
Scho;ur� III l�/S. L'�lCfaan ll'H.\(l·
I "'�';;j'::
t�lins: "It is quite deal' ihtlt
wron:.� �lbo�lt an impo
rt,ult 'nSJlDct
: tho(!
,of l(amptlctl<!,m COi'nnn:ni::;m
bnl ta l iluthodtari,rtn tr.,:1d
willliu
t oft.::c
th0 r('volt1tioll::lry m()\'��.:ne.� ,
f()(It;;;
19'1'3 ,,'as n,';t simply a grass
,
,
!hr
rc,lc;iOll, ::n:.1 t"X1)t""<�$;;i(),il uf 1H.·j)t
Otl!.t':it�\! tit the killing and dc;.;tr
w:>
o:.:d
tion or tb,) countf'y���de hy Unit
help::: ....!
S�,ti ,�:-; bomh5, nhh(Hl)::h that
call U-:.�
it ::Ilo11?, d;·.!d,�i\'��1y. TJ!er�
:no d()ub�in/, t!1at.the' e
...... i;.ienc,,-: :,L.)

\
c' W;,! ()�
p1lillt$ c�c:ldy to <t $y�:tell.1�ti
\' vi/,)k nc�� 'lga.in ,.st tllt'! 'p.;)pl� l:lti�ln
.:-(!ctr(n1· ,'nt- tnt!
:,y
1lwt (:l:,W':1Il1St
re\'()ll��inn,:r:-' m6\'erU��!lt
tltat, \',:1:­

led �)\- Pot· Pot " . l'.tnl"

t'o'fe;', in ,\
:, . 199(},
p:tp-:!l'� pr,�sented in .runt:
e rel� ntlt�% t!;;',�
1 Heel :; ' ;\' \·:rov .: of "Th
, (If H�rl'f)r hy til'?:
P,Il'ty npp;,tCI.ttt!-; ,I�
u ....:lliJle ,,;,::dn:'i.t ..
t)l!! .p0j'nd"twn rp�
.n \..·hfl1�! ;:�'nJ by
the Pol p{)t. T:I
Party
;vrol. :iD1!ch coaHrlun t.lt tlH!
Ccntet."
YOtlrs i.:litbft·;lly>
:.nCIL\ EL LEIFER,
lc$ ��nd
Lond�)[l S chool (If EC(lno!n
p,)!!t;c,tl Scienc.:!.
HO�!���IWn Str('tt,
l.o!ld;)u \\',C2, ---_.,--.-._.._--
--_._--_._--

LL'tt.::r3 jn'/'" pHbUC(�I!(JlI :;lw!

dd,' an"h',::
(m n:.?,;d,i!: mor
,,;n:.: t!t tll':: IU{:i.-;:t
· (IS l'o$siM�
'fin:!} 3h()uFd be as. �J/O: t
o;i� .:::ic�::
(m::" :;;/tui!?d lie t�r;t!elt (If!
(�i?itfll' r,:"*
{If tb.:' F:I!H'�I" (mlp. Thf:!
$P.)T�>i {iI·..' )'i��ht
t:J C!lt or nme,d
[heir! if l1?":C-;;;C'::!:-
I:' I'"! i c.,,, "'1 :r. ; 'U :�.l'.·' .':

I
 13

The truth
about
Indochina
Noam Chomsky (right)
replies to charges by
Steven Lukes (left)

In THES (November 7), Steven The error is transparent. Our task arid is a more muted version of
Lukes alleged that I am "conttibut· was to compare the evidence avail- �onc1usions of Cambodia specialists.
ing to deceit and distortion sur· able with the picture that reached Thus, in a book published at the
rounding Pol Pot's regime ". refer- the public, and we demonstrated same time as ours (Be/orc Kam­
ring to a chapter in my book with that there was a systematic bias, not puchea. 1979). Milton Osborne dis.
E. S. Herman, The Political only with regard 10 Cambodia.This cusses the g r im conditions of life
Economy of Human Rights (1979). analysis yields no direct, tcmciu-,. of the' Khm�r peasantry. concluding
He then wrote to me, requesting sions about the actual facts, but only that .. any attempt to understand
commems. I sent him a point·by· about the waY3 in which available rural revolution in Cambodia" that
point analysis, showing that the evidence is used. We made this did not take them into account
"quotes" he gave in support of point explicitlY, and repeatedly, so would be .. dishonest und mislead­
his claims were, without exception. that there could be no confusion. ing", and that the terror was in
fabrications or seriously distorted, Lukes even cites one such. passage: large part"surely a reaction to the
and that nothing remained of his " When the facts are in, it may turn terrible bombing of Cornrn�nist.held .
argument when these and other -out that the Dlore extreme con- regions that went on untIl August
errors were eliminated.Two months demnations were in fact correct . 1973." We cite David Chandler
have pa �ed with no response, A But even if that turns ' out to be {" Paying off old scores or imaginary
letter by Michael Leifer (TJlES, t �' :" . , ,", m·,ll i.?,,"',::, Y'· lt: ", b : ones played a part·" ill the killings.
, "n "l... "'v w h ... " .. h d vn h "but, to a large ·extent, I think,
January 23) adds new falsifications
and prompts me to comment pub- central q uestion addressed here: A merican actions are- 10 blame")
lidy, though I am reluctant for �wo how the availab,le facts were and many others to the sa�e eff�ct,
reasons: it is Lukes's responsibility, selected, modified, or sometimes induding refugees; and t.ncludmg
not mine, to correct bis false state- invented to create a certain image Ponchaud . , Lukes's favourIte, who
general population". writes
ments; space is unavailable to offered to the that peasants who suffered
demonstrate the most significant Lukes writes that with this remark, terdble atrocities in 1968 .. were
against
point, namely. the remarkable COD- Chomsky" prOteclS himself firmly resolved to pay back a
sistency of misrepresentation. refutation by the facts"· Note the hundredfold the evil that had been,
technique. Lukes begi�S
Here is one example_ Lukes de- ingenious done to them." Recall that Lukes
by fabricating a �osition Jhat e bitterly condemns us for raising the
scribes our "ludicrous method:
auributes to I:?e. ' e � hi bl�es !lur possibility that" peasant Te\:enge"
demanding "verifiable evidence', explicit
rejech(lO 0f 'hIS � nc.atton, alongsi de . of
documentary sources, etc, and dillS o nc uding thr by rei. ectl� Ij' we may be one factor, ng foJ: post­
in a<;C(�unti '
dlscre<iiting refugee reports and « protect1 ourse ves ag "n ,! e. aCts. .m:lIlY others, killin g.
'mated1l1 that is sub,·ect II) no I heanily rOC war deaths and
!lmlend thIS deVlce to '
O
check'." The phrases he quotes any aspiring polemicist . Turning to , Leifer, h,: rep�au
ng . Cited
are lifted from the following sen· It i s, of course, true that we Lukes's error of reasoDl .
tence:' "We stress again that it is "had views", though we made no above and daims that our . .con
of
the verifiable evidence, of however effort to develop them, -our to ?ic stant reiteration of the �he.m�
minor a nature it may be, th"-t de- being a different and quite legl ti- peasant reve llge and undiSCiplined
o
termines how much faith a ration<ll mate one. Our highly tentative con· trOOps leaves the reader In p
e
person will place in material that clusions were similar to those of doubt whatsoever of the alternat!v
faCtS whIch
is subject to no check." Our slato!- United States intelligence anal:ls!) establishment of the . Leifer
ment is a truism; to evaluate un- whom we cited, and of Fran1;ois they seek to e x pound"
carelessly. What we
verifiable reports, one must deter· Ponchaud, whom Lukt'is praises,. reads very
" constantly reiterated" was that
mine the credibility of the reporter tbough we refrained from endors- would be (and are)
factors
where his accolmt is verifiabi-il. ing his comments on the alleged tllese .in serious work, though
This truism Lukes certainly accept". achievements of the regime· or his ex.amined ignored in the propaganda
regularly
Thus. I -do not doubt that he would more careless cbarges (which he .ew d
discount reports of United States removed from the AUlerican edition weL:i1�� �laims further t�at we
germ warfare in Korea. because me of his book, while leaving them in "re ly greatly on the wnullgS . of
sources lack credibility when sub- the simultaneous world edition and
Ben Kiernan and Steven Heder,
jec! to verification elsewhere. U�ing later translations, to which some refute refugee
especially 10
� -device of "quotation" i n bis remarkable lies were added, as we
accounts of organized terror. . Yet
manner. one could prove anything . showed). . wrote tha,�
• _ in 1978 >,' Kier�an
furthermore, we LuXes presen!3 what he calls our .
explicitly the '"' brutal aut!lOotarlan trend.
rejected the . position Lukes anrl' "twofold" conclusions: .. that the after 1973 was am:ibutable in. part
b-utes to us. Our chapter begins atrocities and number '�oE kilHngs to the Pol Pot faction... not SImply
witb the statew!lnt <that "in the are �nost probably greatly exag- a gra� roots reaction, and expr�s­
case of Cambodia, there is nO diffi· g.erated; and that they are in any
. sion of popular outrage at the kdl·
culty in documenting major atroci_ case,'a direct and undeutandil>ble in;;: and desU'\lction of the cO\lntry­
ties and oppression. pritnarlly from respotlse'" to the US assault. Let side by United Stae. es 'borobs.
tbe reports of refugees". We us consider these claims. although that helped It alo�g ,de.
warned against the very falsifica . On the scale of atrocities, we cisively". And Heder wrote Itt the
tion i n' which Lukes engages:' drew no firm C'lnciuSions except to same vein i n July 1980. N�w to
11 "People who have expressed scepti- say that the record was U sub·
the facts. First, Leifer .c.onvemen.tly
cism about the press barrage are stantial.-and often gruesome." We predates Kiernan's arude, whlcn
commonly accuse d of refUSing. to Cited..... estimates ranging from appeared in Dectlmber 1979, wen
believe the accounts of miserable .. possibly thousands" killed af ter our b ook was published. In
t refugees, a line that is much easier (Nayan Chanda, the highly regarded fact, the . esear,h Kiernan distusses
to peddle than the tfutb: that they Correspondent of the Far East ern was begun as our book went to
are primarily raising questions Economic Review, which estimated as Leifer surely knows. We
f about the credibility of those who the population at a.lOO,COO" as our presS
I·

coull hardly have referred to this

��P O ,',','- and
� , ' �� ,,�, P''? it- ' h'. , book went to press) to 2,000,000 article, or to Heder's suU later one.
,P,,"h,
...... ff ng vf Il f ... g " d wh killed (Jean Lacouture at about Secondly, we never referred t�,
1- tbey are 'alleged to have said." We the same time as Chanda), indud- Reder" o. refute refugee acc WltS
O
e gave voluminous evidence to demon- ing t
US intelligence estimates on any topic
g strate the lack of credibility of ranging from thousands to hun- '
Thud, we nowhere atteplPt p.d �. to
0, sources on which the media -uncriti - dreds of thousands killed, nurn_ refute refugee accounts at organu. ed
g cany relled, also citing ex.amples bers also offered by Lacouture '" nther .we discussed fl hn,; y·
of quite credible reports of atrod· when he ret.acted his 2,(l(ifr,OOO terror m
etimes fabricated documen­
I,
e ties. We raised virtually no ques· figure. As noted above, we stated and so
d tions about refUgee testimony; in that the higher figures · might tation pro\'ided by commenlatvrS ,
crucial quesri?ns. rtl­
i· fact, we critiched the media for prove to be correct. We then noting that
failing to take account of such test!- showed that the higher the ero· F mained o pen as we wrot� 10 :91�.
inally note that Kiernan s p O lnt u
l.
mony, citing 'many examples. We mates•. the greater tbe publicity
perfectiy consistent with our tenta.­
1,
� never demanded U documentary they , tended to re<:eive, even after d . popular
n sources .... but rather reviewed those they were withdrawn as fabrka. ve suggest ion that " 01;11-
t. that have been presented, showing tl
"ge" m ay hav 6 been one cfucra.l
O. ns. , factor, regularly
•
Ignore..d All 0f
,.
"
')i ,h., ,·n m.n" .crucial cases they Turning to our second "concIU· this is not untyplcal . •

were seriously misr"yresented or of I.etfe� s way

sion ", note that Lukes again wi th facts. as documented m the
�: ����i�d���' as often ater quietly seriously distorts "What we wrote.
chapter he misrepresents.. . .
he source is our discussion ot a Our twO volumes show m.....�etatl
Ie This is only one e:wmple; but a ·t
study by Charles Meyer on the ways in which intellectuals often
typical one. Let us now consider 1971 .
of peasant violence We tend to provide services for slate
equally gross errors of reasoning. the rOots
;I.

(I. Lukes correctly quotes us on our comment that" If a serious study prOPaganda. We did �ot . el';pe::t
rl{ actual topic: United States global of the impact of Western impe dal· this to be a welcome conclUSIon. I t
policy ond propaganda, not. "the ism on Cambodi(l.n peasant life is is of some interest to note the intel·
someday undertaken, it·may well be J
II
t t nd hln ' " J I eI £ he re-ponse :.IS
�� ��i�� ��� h�;e :�; ����'!:;eJ discovered that the violence lurking :;�r�
s tt� cO�Sj s�' ent failure �vetl
a

m or expressed our views here". He behind the Khmer smile . - . is not to consider the most sig1llficant
of then writes:" but of course he does a reflection of obscure traits in i:xamples we. di$cu$s�d: ,: amely,
A,. and must have such views. since peasant culture and psychology, but apologetics for ongmng VlOlenC<l
'Y his aim is to show how uhe nature is the direct and- understandable for which one 's own state bears
d- of these regimes has been distorted response to the violence .of the direct responsibility.
'Y and misdescribed ". He then pro- imperial system, and that ItS cur·
ns ceeds on the assumption that we rent m�nife$lations are a no less
-'$ are doing what we explicitly deny: direct and 11nderstandable response" The author is professor
oj linguis.
�C' giving our views concerning the Pol to the UII[tcd States assault. Our tj'CS at the _\!c.'I$(l.Cnuser.rs Insti tut
e
.
POt regime. actual statement i.� highly qualified, 0/ TechnoloSY·
 31

government is engaged in "the assas­

Suspending sina-tion of a people". giving estimates
of the numbers executed or otherwise
victims of centralized government poh­
Chomsky's cies. Reviewers and other commenta-
tors then inform the public that Pon­
chaud has shown that the Cambodian
�

disbeliefs government, with its policies of auto­

genOCide. IS on a par with the Nazis,
perhaps worse"
I
ATION SUPPLEMENT
. But they completely fail to discredit
Councill�
WCI X 8EZ TelephoneDI -8371234

the evidence Ihese authors have amas­

sed. William Shawcros has written that
e e i o t a
y for the 1980s �a r:�� � �D�'�e ;��� ��r�lul� �����
Paul recorded a great many horror
�tones: about the forced march from
gloomy winter was re­ no longer corresponds to the substance Phnom Penh; the appalling rigours of
er their expectations, of pay bargaining. Indeed with some hfe in the new work camps; the
e bribe of a substantial negotiators swopping hats and destruction of all traditIOnal social
back pay whatever the round to the other �ide oLthe relationships, Including the family; the
dest tnck In the trade mid-negotIatIon, the system is Silly in me of murder, and the threat of
T' S hook when havmg theory and complex in practice. murder, as a means of control" He
mhers wlIh inevltahle The leaders of the AUT have tended considers these stones have a con­
In any case it was the to favour a s1Ogle-t]er negotiating sys­ sistency that. even allowmg for the
UT or the Universitie,) tem so that the association can hargain natural tendencies of refugees to ex­
eI which delayed an directly with the DES as the real aggerate. confirms their basIC truth
nt. paymaster. In practice this would make Father Francois Ponchaud. the author
ni�igatmg argument i� the bill for academiC salaries either an of Cambodge A nee Zero. and prob­
ably the man who has made the most
n
new poly
by Peter David
Loca� government le�ders expn:
growmg confidence thiS week m
ahliity to persuade the Governme
abandon Its proposals to ·nation�
<is colleges and polytechnics. leak,
a Department of Educat]on and S(
ce paper las! month.
At a �peclal meetmg of the COl
of Local Education Authorities
Wednesday, memher� gave their b

I: It IS that If university earmarked element withm the UGC agreement to a plan of theIT ow
ne better, universities grant to the uOlverslties or entirely Steven Lukes thorough study of the refugees from regorm the management of pl
Quid have done even separate from It. For obvious reasos democratic Kampuchea. agrees with sector higher education hut retain I
e relationship between the UGC and the vice chancellors are In the THES (November 7) I accu�ed hIm. So do I. government control
dilion of the universl­ un a �ir �b��� t����e�� Noam Chomsky of "contributtng to Chomsky chose (and still chooses) to Under the CLEA propo�al. a nat]
f univer�ity teacher� IS � b e to scrar the deceit and dIstortion surrounding Pol discount much of this eVidence. body With a maJonty of emmct!
Pot's regime" in hIS hook with E.S hers woulJ be set up to plan
0'

. On the surface and in Committee A-!3 system and substitute argumg that '·the apparent uniformity
the correlation rna,"' a straightforward system of negotiation Herman. After the Catac(vsm (1979) of refugee testimony is in part at least distributiOn of hIgher educa
legatlve as this second between the employers (the Universi­ He asserh (TilES. March 6) that my an artefact reflectmg media bias". To courses and distnbute fund� to colli
,Is. It is cerainly true ties) and theIT employees (university ca�e is based on "fabncatlOns" and which the only appropriate response is - leaving Individual educatIon aut
erous salary increase teachers) with the DES consigned to "gross errors of reasoning" Let us see Ponchaud's: '. it IS surprising to see Jtie� free to top up tlft'1r colle
the Universities under the SIdelines as m Burnham. After all. Chomsky claims that Herman and he that 'experts' who have spoken to few if bu t l
se financial pre')sure. if local authorities ne�otiate as em­ were exclusively concerned With de­ any of the Khmer refugees should .. ��� �o�y ���l����f��� memhe
intensive industry 11 ployers. surely umversltles with theIr monstrat1Og the ··systematlc bla�" in reject their very signifIcant place 10 any .... the Committee of D]rectors
efWlse. For the same long tradition of IOstitutional auton­ the Western medIa and that they did study of modern CambodIa. These PolytechniCS. the National Assocla
stions by Mr Sapper. omy should do the same. Such a system not give theIr "vIews c.o�cernmg the experts would rather base their argu­ of Teachers 10 Further and Educat
leTa1 secretary. that would have several advantages. II Pol Pot regime". But thl<; I� untrue. as ments on reasonmg; if something and representatIves of industry
)uld he avoided at all would be up to the universlltes not the any reader of the book can attest. It �eems imposs]ble to theIr personal commerce
the eqUIpment grant. Government to reconcile theIr mcome advanced a clear thesl� about wha� II logic. then ]t doe�n't eXIst A d6cument settmg out the CL
ld by lowering the age with theIr ability to pay hIgher salaries. was plausible to belIeve had happene.d proposal say<; a body able to maxir
ent to 50 should be It would encourage prompt and serious In Pol Pot's Cambodia. Thai theSIS What then of the sources on which
Chomsky does rely? Chomsky and the use of resources would hav{
It caution. The first. negotiatIOn rather than drawn-out play goes well beyond the self eVident tru�hs Herman clearly endorsed Ben Kier­ enjoy close links with the Ut1lvel
'. IS undesirahle: the act109 and prevarication. It would that the US bombing was one major nan's questlOnmg "t.he a�sumption th�t Grant� Committee and call on "
h desirahle. is not oblige the AUT. and other trade preconditIOn for what occurred and there was central dIrectIOn for atrOCI- cxperti�e and judgment
unions. to take a realistic view of the that "peasant revenge" may be one ties" and that they extended through· ·'Reconstituted regiOnal advI'
Ightly broader view IS resources available to their employer
:elationshlp factor. alongside of many othels, In out the country. But Kiernan now bodies could be reqUIred to collect
hetween universities (and encourage mdividual accounting for postwar deaths and writes ·'1 was late in realizmg the extent channel IOformatlOn on cour<;es
finances and low AUT members to strike a responsible killings. It asserts that Pol Pot's regime of the tragedy in Kampuchea after 1975 student demand to the central hodv
NiH be seen that both balance between their mstitutional and was ·'simply forcing the urban popula­ and Pol Pot's responsibility for it" and the bodv could collect the informa1
same proce<;s. the trade unIon interests) tIOn to the countrYSide where they that there IS "a left wing argument - dIrect from local education autl
ublle esteem of the In the longer term the AUT must were compelJed to live the lives of poor still held. apparently by Noam Choms- illes," the paper says
ioed with the under­ reconsider its relations with other trade peasants, now organized in a decen­ ky - which suggests that. although Pol "In order to exerc]<;e suffiCient
st-war welfare state unions in higher education. For better tralized system of communes", that It trol. the body would need to eJ
c

lent in the financial or �orse the pay of university teachers enjoyed widespread peasant support. Pot made numerous brutal errors. the influence over course approval<;. :
lmiversities achieved IS Itkely the future to move In much and that ··the deaths In Camhodia were asumption of sOl?ethi�g especially out­ even. wlthm agreed limits. to he abll
eal pay of univerSity closer harmony with that of
10
not the result of systematic slaughter landIsh about hIS regime ]s a chimera divert funds to part]cular InstitutIOn
be brief and flimsy polytechnic and college (and school) and starvatIon .orgamzed t)y the state bred up by the Western (and Viet­ duthoTlties to encourage certain act
o

mrstake for a Vice teachers. Some AUT members may but rather attnbulable 10 large mea­ namese) news medIa". Michael Leifer t]es."
�ine that his universl­ regard such an association as yndlgni­ "ur� to peasant revenge. undisciplined (THES. January 28) has quoted the
I

,hened financially if fied. But probably more. rememberlOg military units out of government con­ clear ackowledgements by Kiernan
staff were paid less, the bitter expenence of the first and trol. starvation and dIsease that are and Stephen Heder (on whom Choms- Course transfer
apper to argue that now a second anomaly. Will regard it on direct consequences of the US war. or ky also relied) of the Pol Pot, regime's
dancieo; must be balance as a POSitive development. othe� such factors". This is not Just my "systematic use of violence . and "re­ angers lecturers
g non-staff expendi­ Twice too often in recent years UOl­ readmg of their hooks. A revIewer lentless use of terror" Chomsky's only
lportanr:-- The only versity teachers have paId for their hl��ly sympathellc to them �nd sharply reaction is to observe that these state­
) reverse the down­ aloofness from other teachers with critical of me (In Kampuchea Bulletin. ments postdate his book. .... hy Paul Flather
value of both the lower salary increases. Looking back. Jan/Feb 1981) takes them to have In hIs THES reply. Chomsky also
argued ··that the available eVidence Angry lecturer� from the Polytcdl
�

and of university the infamous Prices and Income Board
r universities to win report of 1969 seems to have marked
r pri�rity in public the beginning of this sea-change in the
that IS impossible or salary status of university teachers.
Increasingly the questions will be
J��h��������i�i asked whether thiS closer association of
are tasks that go far salary negotiations for umversity and
fiate context of uni­ non-university teachers should lead to
lay. a close association between their trade
now look forward in unions, the AUT and Natfhe (perhaps
the next stages in its moving via a joint membership agree­
try not to look back ment to the creation of a single union
Igry regret. The first for all higher and further education
sk is to reform their teachers?). Today this may be a prema­
negotiating salary ture idea but It is still a hopeful
l!ism of Committee direction in which to travel. Not only
r
�uggests that the maJonty of the klil­
lOgs were not centrally ordered and
were most likely personal and unoffi­
cial settling of accounts by peasants"
Cnornsky and Herman contrasted
this thesis With that "to which the
propaganda machine is committed:
that the Khmer Rouge leadershIp was
committed to systemattc. massacre and
�tarvallon of the population it held in
S c i brutal Pol Pot regime will return"). He
�irt���;'a ��t�!� �}"!o��! i� �' ���s�
t�at the regime was the very. incarna­
Iton of evil with .no. redeemmg qual­
cites "Nayan Chanda. the highly re­
garded correspondent of the Far East-
s i
��71���en�T�����;;��: o1 ����c�t:��
But Chanda has recently written of
an hl h s I
;����� �� � ����ta:; �} I�r�h����
widows and mass graves". where '·each
village seems to have its local �u­
schwitz" and (,·the overriding emotion
of the Khmers is a fear that the
writes that under Pol Pot. "the killing
seems to have been part of an overall
lc nt
g:���f�dles � �I��:�te�ft�� a �e;i��
of the South Bank have protes
strongly to the Inner London Educat
Authority about an abrupt volfeface
plans to concentrate polymer seie
courses at their polytechnic
Last week an ILEA sub-commIt
was forced to defer a final decision
to allow South Bank more time
lobby agamst a new report wh
recommends polymer sCIence cour
should now be moved from Sa
Bank to the Polytechnic of No
London (PNL). .
The deciSIon is of great significar
because ILEA officers are beginning

misnamed Universi­ would such unity lead . to greater
nell and Committee strength in pay bargainin; It would also
ersus the DES with correspond to the emerging reality of a
Ig uneasily in the single interdependent higher educa­
nothing to preserve tion system that is already replacing the
-sily autonomy and binary divide.
Monty
He believes that fusal to accept this central recom­
n.
ities" Their theSIS. m short. was the
basis on which they made their case for
�ystema.tic bias in the media. (engaged
m "engmeering consent to the priori­
ties and �tr.uct�res of contemporary
state captlallsm"). To establish it they
attacked the credibility of those re­
cording refugee testimony that refuted
it.
T�ey wrote: "Most of the well
pubhclzed infor�ation concerning
postwar CambodIa derives from re­
gone mad"
hO k i ... the five London polytechnics.
to � p �� hi:!1�� ::���I��� 3;�c����
US bombing. But Osborne has recent­
ly . written that the numbers (in his
sample) killed by order of the author­
ities twere staggering and observes:
"What happened in Kampuchea went
so far beyond the paying off of old
scores that an observer ends hv
reaChing an impasse in serching for am
overall explanation for such a descent
see it as a pilot scheme for furtl
course rationalizations likely amo
Mr Michael Crook. a member of
South Bank polymers and rubber te
nology schooL said: "To have a rep
which contained errors and i logi
statements and on which we had I
time to comment frankly made ()
blood bUll. "
The South Bank argues that t
orignar decision reached after lengt

"omise plan for a mendation and instead tO lay around ports of refugees - or to be more consultations by the Hayes work
y toothless) author- with woolly and confusel comprom­ precise - from accounts by journalists into savagery." Part of the explana­ party should stand. The Hayes rep
ted. Instead he has ises. and others of what refugees are alleged tion, he suggest. lies in "an absolute concluded polymers were well in
t o.� all institutions In the lasi few months he has paid to have said. On the basis of such determination on the part of the grated with other South Bank e
relieves and hopes, out thousands of millions of public reports, these observers draw conclu­ Khmer Rouge leadership to erase the ring work. unlike the courses
own proposal for a money to bail out companies such as sions about the scale and character of past" F���
efore..po.we.rful.. British Steel and British Leyland to atrocities committed -in C-amhoffi..a.. 1fte facts -c-eming m, ami "th� This week South Bank lectur
to do so. The whole rescue failure, unkind critics might
au-

conclusions which are then circulated

: . .(.
more extreme condemnations" are' were presenting a final brief to a spei
are

hority was to take �ug�est. Yet he appears strangely un­
the prote.sslOn and willing to invest a small sum of money,
trigumg and special £IOm. in possible success by estab­
�st groups. lishing an engineering authority which
)mmittee made-one--5tGGd-a-fair chance of contributing to
endation-the crea- greater efficiency in British industry.
(often modified) in the press or the
halls of Congress. For example. Barron
Paul present some examples of what
they claim to have heard from refugees
and then conclude that the government
of Cambodia is bent on genocide, a
being proved correct. But Chomsky
claimed and claims that this should "in
no way alter the conclusions we have
reached". His argument. presumably,
is that it was plausible disbelieve
what has now turned out to be true.
was 0
six-man committee headed by M
Ann Ward, chairman of the ILE
further and higher education sub Ca
mittee. which will make a final decisi
shortly.

ILEA officers. however, believe t

�ority to implement Nothing could be more depressing than co�c1usion whicn.is then presented ill But what is it plausible to think
u.endations made in for a reform designed in par1 to heal the vp.nous forms by commentators. Simi� courses should now be concentrated
about Pol Pot's Cambodia? The-writers
now

ts keystone. So it is Br:itish disease falling victim itself to larty Ponchaud. cites examples of re­ PNL for a number of reasons.
and Sir Keith's re- thiS ennervating germ. cited abQYe.... on whom Chomsky has
fugee reports and concludes that the relied. are in no doubt. Is Chomsky?

-
 T1iE1TMESHlttHl'.RF_OUCATIONSUPPLEr>I� IM.Sl

Un
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
The dispute about atrocities in Kampuchea S
Sir, -III our stu of US fci�isn policy engaging in aPologetics fot the Khmer let), or .'if the deaths in Cambodia concerllin$ the Khmer Rouge Ih31 are
alld ideolog (�oliticaJ Economy of Rouge. In response (March 6), I were not the resull of .. stematic eilh.!r pomive, Of Ihat deny familiar Cl
Human Rig xIS, 1979), E.S. Herman reviewed examples of his evidence, slaughter and starvationH. \�e did nOt claims about the scale of atrocities: eg,
and J distinguished two types of blood. showing Ihat it was a m<!lange of "assert� that the latter possibility was Ponchaud, who wrote of the "genuine h
bam: "belllgn or constructive blood. "deceit and dislortionH• Space re5tric. true, as is quite explicit and Subject to e litarian rcvolutionH in Cambodia.
bath,.H, which are �tisfactory to US tionsprevented a eomplete review, but s n r e con·. w�ere there isa new "spirit of responsi·
Interests, and '"nefarious bloodbaths".- as I noted, I had sent Lukes a point.�- �I�d���h�;� i:��, �� ��i�!�.� bility and "inventiveness" that '·repre· Th,
Cril
eommitted by official enemies. In a point demonstration (December ) This particular fabrication is quite sents a revolution in the traditional
series of ease studies, we showed that thatlhe "quotes� he used as evidence revealin",t al$O appears in Luke's first mental\�'" of the·new pride shown by '"
t<e
the fonner are typically treated with were in each case fabricated or serious- article. hile space prevented me men an women engaged in construc· to<
silence, denial or apolo etics. while the i e from responding in full in print, inc\ud. tive work; orthe Far Eastern Ecollomic uni
Ianer are �iled upon tor propaganda >:h�tf�:��'!!d�� �;f. I::���J ing this ease. in, my letter to him of Rt�itw, which estimated the Pula. ott
purpo�s. often \\;th reliance on evi. -tf)' (THES March 2�), Lukes silently December 7 ( speCifically lnted OUt tion at8.2 million (highetthan tke 1975 isa
dence that is dubious or 5impl fabri. abandons all the "evidence" 1 reviewed that in this case too he �ad grossly estimate) in January 1979, when our inc\';
eated. Atrocities _that we could mili. in print, tacitly conceding its true misrepresented what we wrote. In book went to ress; or the CtA, whicn 0
ate or let mi nate are ignored or denied character, and offersfurther examples, n he e L estimated Pol� ot killings at 5O-100,OCIJ
tego the US-supported massacres in no less specious. ::e::I� t� t�: c���1:���ts ��h in its 1980 demographiestudYi or relief
Timor), whne iliose beyond our reach Lllkes begitl$ by slatin$ that I perfect clarity. agencies that estimate the current w�
,b
elicit great outpourings of humanita- claimed that we were "exclUSIVely eo;!- Lukes states that we "fail to discredit l e th,
rian sentiment and outrage (eg, Pol POt cerned wit,h demonstrating the 'sys.- the evidence � of refugees presented by rts �A?i���� :o���a!n;t���!��i:;
massacres). While there are excep- temalic bias' in Ihe Western media and Barron·Paul. Poncbaud. etc.Nor did claim that Pol Pot reduced the popula- "'
m;
lions, this tendency· is strikin� and that (we) did not give [OUf) 'views welry,aswe madeexplicit. Rather. we tion to 4 million. It is again rcvealing
plays a $i �nific.ant role in creatlflg an· eoncerning Ihe Pal Pot regtme ".What showed that Barron·Paul are totally that Lukes a...oids real cases and con' th
b<
ideologica climate supportive of con· I wrote was that our primary concern unreliable when subject to verification eods quotes to try to support his claim
tinuing atrocities. was the propaganda system, but that and that Ponchaud's book. white '·set. that we offered apologetics for Pol Pot.
'"
As one example in our book, We we also indicated Our ".highly tentative lous and worth reading". (s�ecifically, Lukes asks finally what 1 think we th
dealt with Khmer Rouge atrocities conclusions" about the facts, which Wltb re ard to tbe atrOCities m Cambo- should now believe about Pol Pot's th
(volume II, chapter 7), showing that were "similar to those of US intem· dia. w �ich Ponchaud graphically reo Cambodia. t would be glad to discuss m
tht reaction fil5 the general pattern gena: analYsts whom we cited, and of cords from the testimony of ref1 ees). this wilh a person who accepted the
quite well. Since these atrocitics eould Ftan�is Ponchaud", in the santized b nevertheless deeply flawe ., for basic ground rules of rational and G
be attributed to an official enemy and American edition of his book. reasol'ls we document. We al$O noted honest discussion. But plainly there is th
there was little that eould be done Lukes then presents his new "evi· the significant fact that work of this no reason for discussing thIs matter
about them, there was massive denun. dence". He tittS our description of nature (particulatly, Barron·Paul) with Steven Lukes, as he has amply "
ciation. eonsistcnt fabrication of evi· how the Vietnamese and Cambodians would be d�missed out of hand, given demonstrated. "
01
dence. obliteration of past history faced tht problems left at the wat'S what we documented, if devoted to an
(inc!uding the US role), refusal to end. We wrote that in contrast to the ex e s ��A�Ydlo�SKY •
e�aluate the credibility of those trans- Vietnamese, "the victors in cambodia rukU:: cife�;�� �m��:t 'that "the Department of linguistics and Phi!· ,.
milling evidence (as we would do undertook drastic and often brutal apparent unifonnity of refugee testi· osophy "
b
routinel... in the case, �y. of tml measures to ao:omplish this task �f mony is in part at least an artefact MasSachusetts Institute of Technology
warfare' charges against the 'S in retuflling the �pulatioil from t e reflcC1in media bias�. failing to add Cambridge, Mass. .
Korea). and selectiOn 01 theJ most urban concentrations to whl.:h they that we J,emonstrated this by extensive
a

utreme condemnations from the had been driven by US bombard· citation of refu�ee reports and scholar- Sir. - I refer to the di ute between "

ranlle of available evidence. We also mem _ simply forcing the urban Iy studies (inc uding Ponchaud's reo Ste ...
en Lukes, Noam (!:
homsky tl al
[,
,
describ-ed the ludiaous pretence that a popularion to the countryside where ports, when one attends 10 their eon· over on
the nature of Chomsky's writings
Kampuehea. it
tl
eat debate was ra n over Khmer they were eompelled to live the liVes of tents).
Kouge atrocities, wit� tte courageolls poor asan15 •••". measures that The remainder of Lukes's effort con. Chomsky's position has been dis- ,
defenders of human ri �ltS eom el1ed carrier:a "heavy cost". How does this sisl5 of quotes from others, some true, astrous victory
ever smce the Khmer Rouge
in 1975. Bycontinually.concen· ;
to combat powerful fCes 0 feri r e n e e f some false,aU irrelevant to our cha tcr
apologetics for Pol Pot. Since rca� ��� r:��� :e�s��!!,ll ��� �� OJ to what [ wrote, along wit� a trating on mistakes which ournalists
writers made and on t� e war in
examples were notably lacking, exam· e;.tculpation of them? A little Clever reiteration of Leifer's false statement, and whieh westein governmenl5 explOIted
pIes were fabricated. editing suffices. Omitting the eontexl, to which I haVe already respOnded,
We bel!:an our chapter on Cambodia Lukes writes that OUt "thesis .•, asserts that we "relied" on Kiernan and Hed. ���e���e:tt���0�ffr����1��0�:
,

by point!ng oul that "there is no that Pol POI'S regime was 'simply et; a falsehood docs not become true important issue -Whether or not gro�
diffIculty in dqcumenting major atroci· forcing the urban pulation to the by reiteration. He then states that "The abuses of human rights were being
!iesand oP �ession, primarily from the countryside ...." � etc as we· wrote); facts are coming in. and 'the more
reports 0 t refugees" and that "the nolhinJt'more than this. This proves extremc condemnations' are bejn � committed there.
Iassume, given his intellect. that had
_� 01 au�tiU tit Cambodia is that we denied Pol Pot actrocities. proved con-eel. But Chomsky cJaime Chomsk actually gone' 10 talk to
:wb�tamial an often gruesome." and Lukd proceeds to state that our and claims that this should 'In no way Kampuctcan refugees
•

Ec· . DOting finally that "Wl1en the facts are thesis asserts that ..the deaths in Cam· alter the eonc1usions We haVe would haVe reallzed thai in Thailand he
a terrible
in. it may turn out that the mote extreme badia wefe not the result of systematic reached·... He interprcts this state..
eondemnations were in fact correct." slaugbter and starvation 0if,anized by . men! as meaning that "it was plausible crime His
was indeed being eommiued,
!itica1 influence is such that he
Sin�.: were aware that our �ritical the state but rather attributa Ie in large to disbelieve what has now turned out a;have played an Important art in
.a.nalysi$ of the pr:J anda barrage measure to peasant revenge. undisci- to be Irue". But we meant what we coid
"'c

f:j
ml'ght be misinte n!: by care!es&Or plined mmtaryunitsout of govefllment
unscrupulous rea�ers, we emphasized control. starvation and disease thafarc written: wrote, not what he wishes we' had Rou�e. �ad world opinion. left{ashm':f
mobmzi opinion against the
well
ourconc1usions had todo with n t. been $0 mobilized (as hap-
repeatedly the obvious point that expo- direct consequences of the US war, or the way the evidence available was as pene r , for example, in thc case 01
sure of prop anda implies nothl;,g other such factors" (this. a uote from used, and these condusions stand even
about the rl!�ity that is being ex· our book). Now 10 the �acts. The if Ihl! more cxtreme condemnations Chile essure
after 1973) then muth greater
could have been brought to
ploited. Thus, after ,notin.s: that the context is II diSCllssion of Senator were to prove true, exactly as We ar at leasl upon the Khmer Rouge's
more extreme eondemnatlOns m rat McGovl!m's call for military interven· explained in the quote given above. I:!, principal
_

sponsor in Peking.
prove correct, Wt added that al tion on the grounds that 2 million Suppose, in fact,that the evidence now Instead , Chomsky's .well·known
u n t h us o people or more Were "systematically commg in did support the more ex_ views helped lull many p!:ol?:le throu h.
:� ��v�v ��ch:a �� :h� ��t��i � e�� Slaugntered or, starved liy their own tfeme condemnaltons. Then my eon· out world into the Idle Illusion t� at
tion addressed here: how the avail!ble rulers". We noted that he would clusion would be that we were correct the the
facts were selected, mOdified. or $Orne· presumably not haVe made this recom- in writing that "it may tum 01.11 that the R0 horror stories about me Khmer
planted b he CtA,
limes invented to create a certain mend(Ltion which was at once eon· e;meme condemnations are in fab1ccated byeither
e were
�ro�t� offered to the general popula. demnedby � SCambodiaspecialists)if more fact correct". Lukes's increasingly des· is a sorry
journalists or �tho That
role. Steven Lukes is abw-
the nurobers killed were Jess,sa by a j):erate' effort to misunderstand the
In 17It THES (NoVember 7.1980), factor of100 (referring tolean lacou· trivial point we emphasized � again lutely right to criticise him.
Steven Lukesclaimedthat Iwascontri· ture's position that a factor of 100 or
buting la "deceit and distortion" by 1CX.Xl is a relatively unimportant mat· quite revealing.
It would be quite easy to cite reports �l1I���rl\ WCROSS
17 Park.hiU Road, .�.ndo!l N.W.3,.
/', "." '